While there are several things that ultimately led to my deconversion, there was one thing in particular that kick-started it. In January or February of 2010, I was writing material for some upcoming classes at our church when I found some articles that claimed the Book of Daniel was a forgery, and therefore not inspired by God. I knew there were people who believed that, but this article claimed to lay out solid evidence supporting that claim. I was intrigued. I had always been led to believe that history and archaeology totally supported the Bible story, so I was very interested to hear what reasons people could possibly have for not believing the Bible was true. The articles made a huge impact on me.
The blogger Darwin’s Beagle has very graciously agreed to let me repost those articles here. The next series of posts will lay out an examination of the Book of Daniel in a chapter-by-chapter approach. Most of the information comes from the Anchor Bible Commentary on Daniel, but the basic facts presented in these articles can be found almost anywhere. In fact, when I first began researching the points made in these articles, I was shocked to find that there’s very little disagreement about most of this information, even among Christian scholars.
I hope that the next several posts will be helpful to you, as they were to me. The rest of this post comes from the introduction written by Darwin’s Beagle.
To me the important question is “does God exist?” How does one go about answering it? Gods by definition, if they do exist, exist in a supernatural realm that is inaccessible to mere mortals. Thus, their possible existence can never be ruled out. However, there are claims that are made about certain gods that are open to investigation. The putative god most affecting my life and the lives of people I love is Yahweh, the god of Christians and Jews as portrayed in the bible. There are many claims about this particular god interacting with the natural world and, thus, these claims are open to investigation.
Fortunately, the bible is a book commonly available (and in multiple translations) so there is a general consensus on the supernatural claims concerning Yahweh’s existence. Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the reliability of these claims. There are opinions that range from one extreme –- the bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in it down to the punctuation marks is perfectly correct when understood in proper context –- to the opposite extreme –- nothing in the bible shows any signs of real supernatural influence.
I have had a hard time coming up with convenient labels for these positions without being pejorative while still making the label descriptive of the position. I have finally settled on bible-believer for a person who holds the position that a particular supernatural claim in the bible is true and bible-doubter for a person who holds the position that the claim is false.
Then at one extreme is the person who is a bible-believer concerning all biblical claims of the supernatural and the other extreme is the person who is a bible-doubter concerning these claims. Since most people in this country are theists, but not to the extreme suggested above, I suspect most fall somewhere in the middle. That is, they believe some supernatural claims in the bible may be false, but others are likely to be true. I, on the other hand, am an extreme bible-doubter. I do not believe any claims concerning the supernatural are true. That is not the same as believing nothing in the bible is true, it is just a belief concerning supernatural claims of the bible.
I came by this belief after testing the bible. I had developed an hypothesis concerning the bible and read the bible as a test of that hypothesis. The hypothesis was that if the bible was the inspired word of a creator capable of producing the universe and the life in it and thus having decidedly superior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we do now, then it should have undeniable evidence of that. The alternative hypothesis was that if the bible were not the inspired word of God, then it is the work of a primitive people with decidedly inferior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we have now and nothing in the bible should suggest otherwise. After reading the bible twice, I found that the alternative hypothesis (nothing in the bible suggests any superior knowledge of the universe or the life in it) was strongly supported and the hypothesis that the bible should contain undeniable evidence of superior knowledge was not.
I had felt that the strength of these observations alone were sufficiently strong to rule out Yahweh’s existence (and I still do). But, I had not checked out the supernatural claims inside the bible as to whether or not they contradicted the above finding. Perhaps, even without any signs of superior knowledge, the bible may contain irrefutable evidence of supernatural involvement in the activities of the universe to warrant a belief in God. Certainly, some of the extreme bible-believers believe this to be the case.
One oft touted piece of evidence is biblical prophecy fulfillment. Again, opinions on the accuracy of prophecy fulfillment differ. For instance, concerning Messianic prophecies (prophecies about the coming of a Messiah), popular Christian apologist and extreme bible-believer, Josh McDowell says the Old Testament “contains several hundred references to the Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Christ and they establish a solid confirmation of his credentials as the Messiah.” But Thomas Paine, one of our founding fathers and a deist, said, “I have examined all the passages in the New Testament quoted from the Old, and so-called prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, and I find no such thing as a prophecy of any person, and I deny there are any.”
Obviously, at least one person above fooled himself. To lessen the likelihood of such an event, one must establish objective guidelines in assessing the accuracy of prophecy fulfillment. The minimum criteria I have come up with are:
- A real prophecy must be made.
- The prophecy needs to be made well in advance of the date of fulfillment.
- The prophecy must contain SPECIFIC information.
- The prophecy must be so unlikely to happen that the only reasonable explanation for its fulfillment is the intervention of a supernatural entity (as opposed to a lucky guess).
- The prophecy must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
A corollary is that since the fulfillment of prophecy must be an event that is very unlikely to occur, there can be only one putative event that qualifies as fulfillment.
One criticism that may be made is that the above criteria are stringent. I do not believe this to be the case. If one recognizes that the supernatural demands a suspension of the well-tested laws of physics we have been living by, then one must admit that any claims for the existence of the supernatural fall in the realm of extraordinary claims. Any such claim then will require an extraordinary support. The reasoning behind this is that the laws of physics are so well established that the level of likelihood that they are correct approaches certainty. Thus, if data contradicts them, then either the laws are wrong (we already know that is unlikely) or the data is wrong. The only way to overturn established principles is to make the stringency on the data such that its likelihood of being wrong is less than that of what it disproves. Besides, Yahweh is claimed to be omniscient. A prophecy inspired from an omniscient being SHOULD be able to meet those criteria easily.
To date, I have examined several putative cases of prophecy fulfillment; prophecies concerning the city of Tyre found in Amos and Ezekiel, Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14), Jeremiah’s 70 year of servitude, etc. I have found that none of them come even close to meeting the criteria.
This series of posts deals with prophecies found in the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is used by bible-believers as proof for the existence of God. They claim that it was written by a prophet who was a young man when King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem (605 BCE) and served in the court until at least the third year of the reign of the Persian king Cyrus (ca. 536 BCE). They claim that Daniel made miraculous prophecies, such as the coming of Christ, the Roman Empire, and God’s everlasting kingdom which is yet to come.
If their dating of Daniel is correct, then at least some of the prophecies he made were indeed miraculous (although others were clearly wrong). For instance, there are numerous and unmistakable prophecies concerning the conquests of Alexander the Great, events that did not happen until 332 BCE, over 200 years after the supposed time of Daniel.
Since there is no natural phenomenon that can explain this, if it is true then Daniel would be evidence for the existence of the supernatural. However, the only evidence to believe the dating of Daniel is from the book of Daniel. If we are going to question its reliability, we cannot assume before looking at it that it is indeed reliable. We must look for other evidence.
Most mainstream biblical scholars who have looked at Daniel dispassionately have concluded that the bible-believer’s dating of the book is indeed flawed. They cite overwhelming evidence that Daniel was not written until 167 BCE during the Maccabean Period, or about 400 years after the fundamentalist’s claim. Furthermore, once Daniel is put into its proper historical context, the prophecies that seem to predict the events mentioned above, really concern local events of the time. As such, it does not provide any evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Instead, it is shows Daniel to be a crude forgery and is evidence that the bible is a flawed document not likely to emanate from God.
In the upcoming series of posts I will summarize the evidence for the above assertion. I will look at the entire book of Daniel (12 chapters). Since the purpose of these posts is to examine the reliability of the book of Daniel, I will focus on mistakes and attempt an explanation as to how they occurred. From this critical analysis, one can deduce with reasonable certainty that the book of Daniel is a forgery.
Finding Truth 
I can’t help but find it interesting that these biblical discussions can be had between knowledgeable people, who each dive deep into history and scholarly works, each attempting to explain why the evidence they have is better than or out weighs the other.
It seems that if there were such a important message, that was intended for all of mankind, that its truth would be easier to render, but instead we have sincere people believing or not believing. We have sincere believers disagreeing over what to believe…
But the most curious thing to me is that every thing about of this comes from claims of men. How could you believe God over man with regard to the bible, when the Bible was written, copied, translated and delivered all by men?
Oh, man said that god told them to write it? and those same men told us that god wants us to listen to them because they’re telling the truth?
Men said that God said something or did something. Why should we believe those men when there is so much conflicting evidence on both sides?
To say, “well it’s clear for those who want to see,” is lame and dismissive, dodging the real issue. Anyone can make such a comment in order to hand wave away a differing view.
God is all powerful; perfect, complete and eternal – and this is the best he could compose; a “dictated” conflicting and highly disputed and argued over message that has men’s finger prints all over it?
I just can’t seem to swallow that anymore.
Let’s make a test. I don’t know, set up alters and let the believers pray to their god, and whichever god will light their alter first from heaven will be our god… Sound fair?
LikeLiked by 2 people
william, John Zande just posted this on his blog. It seems relevant to what you wrote:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right, God could’ve written it or corrected it or made clarifications himself, but just didn’t – and who are we to question to almighty?
But in part because Ezekiel referenced a name similar to Daniel’s, and since Daniel mentioned a kingdom that would break into pieces, it all must be true 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Nate,
Ezekiel 28 is addressing the king of Tyre, but Israel is clearly the actual audience. The rule of the city of Tyre was not standing in front of Ezekiel at that moment. If you want to believe that Ezekiel put right inbetween Noah and Job a third person as an intercessor to Jehovah who was never called righteous or wise but was a drunken Baal worshipper, rather than Daniel who actually was righteous, wise, and a faithful worshipper of Jehovah, you can do that if you want, but I think you ought to be ashamed of it.
Let me summarize something from before. I had asked:
1.) Can you give me any indication in Ezekiel or elsewhere were a drunken Baal worshipper is given as an example of piety and ability to successfully intercede with Jehovah?
The answer appears to be: “No, I can’t.”
I had also asked:
2.) If it is just chance that Nebuchadnezzar actually had officials with names like the three of Daniel’s friends, then there should be lots of other tablets that have the same sort of thing on them, since we have lots of lists of Babylonian officials. Could you please give me at least one example of a list of Babylonian officials anytime, anywhere, during any period that the Babyonian empire existed, that had three names like these that could by “chance” fit Daniel 1? Thanks.
The answer here also appears to be: “No, I can’t,” although you have a faith, not based on evidence, that it can be done. It is not something I have seen any liberal commentator on Daniel doing, though, whether the Anchor Bible, the International Critical, Hermeneia, etc.
By the way, the work here:
http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/
was not written by Steven Anderson. Dr. Anderson did write the work here:
http://faithsaves.net/darius-mede-anderson/
but the work above was written by the skeptic turned Christian here:
http://faithsaves.net/unbelief-truth/
Thank you for admitting that there is evidence parts of Daniel, at least, are from before the Maccabees. Now if there is no actual MS evidence at all that the book was in parts, where does that leave us with the predictions in the book?
I would like to politely suggest that the evidence in Daniel is only ambiguous if we want it to be so. What if this actually fits Dan 12;10: “none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand”?
Dear Travis R,
There are many clear instances in Biblical prophecy recognize where time periods are skipped over and it is not a matter of people trying, allegedly, to desperately get rid of alleged contradictions. It is reasonable, or at least non-contradictory, for Daniel to skip from the type of the Antichrist, Antiochus, to the actual future person. Furthermore, there is a break between Dan 11:39 and Dan 11:40, as a variety of commentators on Daniel demonstrate. The study on Daniel we have been discussing is not a verse-by-verse exegesis of Daniel.
I am sorry that I have not read your articles you linked to, at least at this point, but at least in the entire series on this blog (which I have read) the argument to make the last kingdom Greece seems very weak. For example, this series of posts admits that some chapters of Daniel clearly make the Medes and Persians one empire, but then to make the last kingdom Greece, they impose a contradiction on the book and say that the empires are different in other chapters.
I hope, Travis, that you have seriously interacted with scholars such as Waltke, Hengestenberg, and Pusey and their works defending Daniel, e. g., http://faithsaves.net/gods-word/. Simply reading one liberal commentary such as the Anchor Bible Commentary on Daniel is not going to cut it for a serious investigation.
Skimming your articles, I noticed some errors of fact. For example, the Letter of Aristeas never says only the Torah is being translated in the LXX. If you read the Letter yourself, the entire OT is being referred to. See pgs. 38-39 of the work on Daniel here: http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/ for a brief discussion, or, better, just study the Letter to Aristeas. (I’m referring to your article here: https://measureoffaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-authorship-of-daniel/). The same article does not deal with other OT works that refer to Daniel such as Zechariah, and the argument from Ben Sirach is greatly overstated.
Finally, in the 70 weeks prophecy one has the choice between (at least one of the) Christian views, which create no contradictions in the prophecy and make sense, and which were also the way the passage was interpreted for centuries both before and after the 1st century A. D., or a view that adds in decades here and leaves them out there to try to get the text to fit Onias. Your statement that the word in Daniel 9:25 is not “the Messiah the Prince” is also clearly false for the reasons discussed on pgs 67-69 of http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/ .
Dear Peter,
In terms of the Exodus not being possible, I hope you have read works such as Israel in Egypt: Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition by James Hoffmeier (Oxford University Press, 1999) and Dr. Hoffmeier’s companion work Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition, or at least something like Ancient Orient and Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen, online free at http://faithsaves.net/gods-word/ unlike the first two books.
Dear Nate,
I don’t want to get into Tyre right now because it is unrelated to this post, but can you prove that the ancient city is not underwater right now?
Dear William,
I’m sorry, but your arguments are not serious like the ones made by some of these other gentlemen. I hope you feel good, though, preaching to the choir.
Dear Nan,
I’m sorry that i don’t get the “God can’t write” argument as being very convincing, but perhaps you can explain to me how a Jew in Palestine c. 165 BC knew that the walls of the palace in Babylon were plastered in the 6th century, as confirmed by archaeology, versus being stone, etc.
Everyone, I would encourage you to see the Dan Barker-Thomas Ross debate on the historicity of the OT once it goes live:
http://faithsaves.net/barker-ross-debate/
as I thought it was very interesting, being there in person.
Thank you all for taking the time to interact on this subject.
LikeLike
One more thing; Travis R, I appreciate your admission here:
https://measureoffaith.wordpress.com/where-i-am/
that the resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence if one does not have an a priori against the miraculous. That is refreshingly honest.
LikeLike
My first thought is to ask if there’s another example of Ezekiel referencing a contemporary, making the reference by placing that contemporary in between/ out of sequence two much older and famous legends, while also using a different spelling for that contemporary’s name?
Surely, “you should be ashamed” is a bit overly dramatic considering the reasons behind it. Maybe you should be ashamed for believing a Perfect God would have anything to with something as corrupt as the Bible – but maybe such accusations and comments aren’t helpful and only serve to distract from the actual discussion and points being made.
What specifically and clearly points to Rome in Daniel?
Why would Daniel name all nations specifically, except for Rome, if Rome were to be the one where God’s kingdom would be established? Why exclude the most important one?
Why reference specific people that makes it look like it conflicts with actual history?
Why assume any man actually speaks for God?
LikeLike
Tom, you said this,
“that the resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence if one does not have an a priori against the miraculous.”
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It’s a wild claim, of a man coming back from the dead, which goes on to suggest that it makes the most sense and is most the most logical conclusion, as long as someone doesn’t have some preconceived notion that such miracles cannot happen – which is an attempt to imply that it’s silly or dimwitted to think there could be no miracles, and is also an effort to suggest that people don’t believe only because they don’t want to believe.
This is too much like the children’s story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to be taken seriously. It’s implying that the virtuous will see it your way, while those that lack virtue will not…
I could imagine and invent any wild explanation for anything and say, “(insert absurd claim) is the best explanation for the evidence if one does not have a priori against the miraculous.” It also seems to ignore the non-supernatural explanations, which there are plenty of.
Like, “Islam is growing and spreading despite all efforts against it, so therefore, Muhamad flew on a winged horse.”
I think miracles are possible however, so I dont think i have a priori against them. I do know, however, that many claimed miracles are faked and falsified. I know that people lie and that people can be deceived. people believe in lies and falsehoods all the time. That is known. So while I don’t automatically rule out “miracles,” I certainly will not automatically rule out “possible lie or fake.”
That being the case, most “out of this world” claims take a lot more evidence for me to believe than if it were a claim of the ordinary or non-supernatural.
“there;s a deer in the woods!”
I can buy that without pictures, video or hair samples.
“there’s a bigfoot in the woods!”
Even with pictures, video and hair samples, i am skeptical, and would still require more information and evidence before I could accept that claim.
Now, if someone believes there’s bigfoot in the woods, that’s fine with me. But, if that bigfoot believer insists I’m a fool if i don’t buy it based on the present evidence above, then I may agree there’s a fool – I just wouldn’t think it were me.
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
The Letter to Eristeas is broken up into verses (like here) — could you please point to where the entire OT is specified? Could you also cite Zechariah’s reference to Daniel?
As for Tyre, I have a whole series of articles on that — you can find them on this site’s homepage, if you’re interested.
Like William, I think your “you should be ashamed of yourself” comments are pretty strong, considering the quality of the evidence you’re using. You would have to lump the vast majority of actual scholars into that label as well. Either way, I don’t have anything further to add on Ezekiel’s reference to Dan’el and the Babylonian names that kinda-sorta might look a little like the names of Daniel’s 3 friends.
What would you expect this evidence to look like? As it stands, the Book of Daniel was written in two different languages, it changes from third person to first person in places, and some versions of the book differ considerably from others. Do you simply mean that we haven’t found the various parts by themselves?
To your comment about the Exodus, have you ever examined any books that lay out the case against it being an historical event? Not asking that sarcastically, btw — I’m genuinely curious.
Finally, while William’s points haven’t gone directly into specific pieces of evidence, I think what he’s saying makes a lot of sense. He’s laying out the general case that we should be skeptical of anyone who claims to speak for God. None of us are inclined to believe that Muslims or Mormons are right when they talk about their own beliefs. I’m sure we’d all try to listen objectively, but their case is going to have to be incredibly strong for us to actually consider that they might be right. The same should go for Christianity. Now, maybe you really do think the Bible is completely inerrant — but the rest of us don’t. And it’s because we’ve studied it enough to feel that it has significant problems, not because we’re unfamiliar with it. Whether you agree with us or not, you’ve got to realize that we’re coming to the discussion from that position. You’ve come to an atheist blog, so trying to dismiss arguments like William’s probably won’t get you very far. They’re serious points to us.
Just my two cents. Back to regular programming. 🙂
LikeLike
Tom, you wrote: “I’m sorry that i don’t get the “God can’t write” argument as being very convincing,”
I was simply quoting someone else. Perhaps you would like to visit this person’s blog and discuss the matter with him. https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/ I’m sure he would welcome the discussion.
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
Please explain. v40 continues the narrative with the king of the south and the king of the north, which are always referring to the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. You’re suggesting that the implied break is at least 2080 years (and counting) and that the king of the north and king of the south change to some different empire?
I will follow Nate in asking you to defend this. More than just the Torah may have been referenced, but it certainly doesn’t clearly identify everything that we would call the Old Testament. I will have to look closer at this to understand why the vast majority of sources refer only to the Pentateuch when they describe this – and no, it isn’t because they’re trying to hide the supernatural nature of Daniel.
I saw that in the article, along with the other claims of intra-biblical references to Daniel, but you fail to establish is that these are actually references borrowed from Daniel and not examples of similar textual constructs and words, in which case this would seem to be a linguistic argument for the later date because it shows that the language of Daniel is consistent with 2nd and 3rd century BCE Jewish literature.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please clarify.
LikeLike
Travis, I took the time to re-read what Gleason Archer (one of Tom’s recommended experts) had to say on Daniel. Archer is renowned as perhaps the staunchest defender of Biblical inerrancy.
He just states in a matter of fact way, as though it is self evident and needs no further argument, that the once the prophecies appear to fail at 11:40 that is because the timeframe has changed from the 2nd century BC to the end times.
Reading between the lines what he is implying is: ‘because Scripture cannot be broken and all prophecy must be true, therefore by definition any prophecy that has not been fulfilled must be subject to future fulfilment’.
Travis, such folk will never admit to a failed prophecy even though it is staring them in the face. The problem is that their preconceived views do not allow this to be in the range of possible outcomes.
In the end they have that fallback to cover all the insolvable problems, ‘Holy Mystery’.
I struggled for years trying to tell myself the Bible was inerrant. Then one day I dared to ask myself the question, to entertain the possibility. ‘what if this is not true?’ The very instant I was prepared to entertain that as a possibility I came to see very clearly the Bible was the work of man not the work of ‘God’.
So many of these Atheist/Christian interchanges get nowhere because neither side is prepared to accept the possibility of the other sides premise is even a possibility. I like to think that folk like Nate, yourself (and dare I say myself) because we spent many years as committed believers are at least prepared to say we have looked at both sides of the argument.
LikeLike
Tom, in regard to the Exodus. I studied the evidence in depth back in 2012 when I was studying a Christian seminary and my term paper required me to examine ‘What evidence is there for an exodus of Hebrews out of Egypt in the second millennium BC?
I read James Hoffmeiers work, I read Gleason Archers work, I read Kenneth Kitchens work, I read every article that Biblical Archaeology magazine had issued on the Exodus and Hebrews in Egypt.
I approached this as a person of faith, a true believer, I was in the process of studying to be ordained as a Christian Minister. I was looking for every shred of supporting evidence. I wanted it to be true.
The following is the conclusion from my term paper:
I was graded A on the paper by the evangelical seminary where I was studying.
Since I wrote this paper I have continued to look into the Exodus with particular interest and I am now pretty much certain that it never happened as the evidence against is simply overwhelming.
LikeLike
Btw, for anyone who’s read this far, if you haven’t taken the time to read Travis’s 3 posts concerning these issues, I highly recommend them:
https://measureoffaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/daniels-prophecies-of-kingdoms/
https://measureoffaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-authorship-of-daniel/
https://measureoffaith.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/did-jesus-fulfill-daniels-70-weeks/
LikeLike
Dear Travis,
Thanks for the comment. I don’t have time to say more right at this point, but please note Pusey on Daniel, pgs. 271ff., for the references to Daniel in Zechariah, Nehemiah, etc., here:
http://faithsaves.net/pusey-daniel/
Dear Peter,
Do you have a critique of Hoffmeier’s two books or of Kitchen? I would be definitely interested.
LikeLike
Also, pardon me, the transition in Dan 11 is between v. 35 and v. 36, not at v. 40–I was going from memory, and my clearly not infallible memory made a mistake. 🙂
Also, Archer has great stuff on the early date of Daniel, but his OT Introduction isn’t a commentary on Daniel, so yo can’t expect him to do pages and pages of exegesis on Dan 11:36-45.
LikeLike
Dear Travis,
What religion were you and what seminary did you go to?
Also, did you think that you needed to ask Jesus into your heart or say a “sinner’s prayer” in order to be saved? If so, even if you don’t believe the Bible right now, you might find the study here:
http://faithsaves.net/sinners-prayer/
of interest.
LikeLike
Tom,
I looked at the Pusey document. Regarding Nehemiah, while I agree that there is common language between the prayers in Nehemiah and the prayers in Daniel, I do not see any clear evidence that Nehemiah borrowed from Daniel. For example, Pusey argued that Daniel 9:15 is following Jeremiah 32:20 as a matter of context but that the shared phrase the word for asah (to make) is the same in Daniel 9:15 and Nehemiah 9:10 (ותעשׁ) but against Jeremiah 32:20 (ותעשׁה). This is supposed to show that Nehemiah borrowed from Daniel’s change but it is also consistent with Daniel having borrowed from Nehemiah rather than from Jeremiah. The primary reason to think that Daniel borrowed this particular phrase from Jeremiah is that we are told that Daniel had just been reading from Jeremiah – but this is only applicable if the author of the text is Daniel himself and he is the one who changed the spelling. Alternatively, we could argue that this is evidence for the later date because if Daniel had followed Jeremiah on that spelling then we would consider Nehemiah to have introduced the change and would not expect Daniel, as the earlier author, to have agreement with Nehemiah even though the prayers share several other commonalities. What’s interesting is that the form of argument I just put forward is the same that Pusey uses in his prior paragraphs to argue that Nehemiah 1:5 and 9:32 were following Daniel 9:4. In other words, Pusey wants to argue both ways. I prefer to recognize this inconsistency and call it inconclusive.
Regarding Zechariah, the connection is even less clear. The similarity here is conceptual rather than textual, in that there are four entities (horns, horses and chariots) presented in multiple visions. Yes, the ‘horn’ imagery is familiar but that does not show dependence on Daniel because there isn’t any indication of the direction of borrowing, if it even occurred. Pusey also seems to think that the visions with the horses and chariots are synonymous with the the four kingdoms in Daniel, but the plain reading of Zechariah is that they are sent out to bring peace on earth and are possibly agents of God rather than nations. This is a stark contrast with the destructive power with which the kingdoms are presented in Daniel.
I don’t see that this mitigates in any way against the concern I previously presented. Allow me to also add one more note on that. In v35 we are told that “Even some of the wise will stumble, resulting in their refinement, purification, and cleansing until the time of the end, for it is still for the appointed time.” This indicates that “the time of the end” is within the lifetime of “some of the wise”.
Lastly, I took a closer look at the Letter of Aristeas. Though the majority of the letter references the “law of the Jews”, the memo from Demetrius to Ptolemy suggests adding translations of “The books of the law of the Jews (with some few others)”. This is the closest thing we get to a statement that the translation included more than the Torah. However, the letter from Ptolemy to Eleazer only requests the law and the subsequent response from Eleazer to Ptolemy says that “I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law“. I think the claim that the Letter of Aristeas only identifies a translation of the Torah is accurate, even if there is a possibility that “some few” other texts were included.
I was never affiliated with any denomination and did not attend seminary – it was Peter who mentioned that.
LikeLike
From http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/ on Aristeas:
[T]the letter of Aristeas indicates that the common Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint or LXX, was translated in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247 B. C.). It is generally recognized by scholars that the translation indeed originated in the third century B. C. However, the letter to Aristeas is clear that the entire Old Testament, not only a portion such as the Pentateuch, was translated into Greek. The letter states that “the president of the king’s library received vast sums of money for the purpose of collecting together, as far as he possibly could, all the books in the world. By means of purchase and transcription, he carried out, to the best of his ability, the purpose of the king.” On this account the Jewish holy books were said to be “worth transcribing” as worthy of “a place in [the] library.” What was acquired was a plural number of “books,” and not the “Law” in the strict sense of the Pentateuch alone, but also “others” of the holy Jewish books to be translated. An attempt to build a library with “all the books in the world” would not translate only a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures while leaving the rest untranslated. Furthermore, Aristeas teaches that “the whole law” with its plural “books” was translated, and that to this translation there was to be “no alteration . . . either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words that had been written or making any omission,” with a “curse” pronounced upon anyone who would dare to do so, in order that “the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged.” Such an explanation only makes sense if the entire Old Testament was in view. The people were not putting a curse upon anyone who would translate the book of Joshua or Isaiah right after rejoicing that the Pentateuch had been translated. The letter to Aristeas teaches that the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek in the third century B. C. This conclusion was recognized by later writers commenting on the creation of the LXX. Josephus indicates that under Ptolemy, not the Pentateuch only, but “many books of laws among the Jews . . . [were] translated into the Greek tongue,” including all “the Jewish books,” that is, “the books of Jewish legislation with some others,” —a description which includes, at a minimum, the entire Old Testament. There is no extant evidence supporting the translation of the Book of Daniel late enough to support the anti-supernaturalist contention on the Book’s origin. On the contrary, all the extant external evidence supports the idea that Daniel was translated into Greek before the time that many of its predictions were fulfilled.
Note that Aristeas 30 actually refers to the Hebrew Scriptures already existing in translation before the origination of the LXX—the LXX was to be an improvement upon even earlier translation work, not the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek.
Furthermore, the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 30:4 in the LXX presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel (cf. E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1848], 234-235 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 362), so even an admission that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in the third century B. C. supports the existence of the book of Daniel at that time.
LikeLike
The book of Tobit, probably the oldest composition in the Apocrypha, is dated by scholars to the third century B. C., and it necessarily predates the Maccabaean period, in which anti-supernaturalists must date Daniel. However, Tobit contains clear verbal allusions to Daniel. Likewise, the Book of Watchers, the first part of the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch, is dated to the third century B. C. and necessarily predates the Maccabean era, as the early dates for the copies of the book found at Qumran verify. Furthermore, the “Hellenistic Jewish historian Demetrius . . . had already . . . drawn up . . . [a] chronology” of the seventy-weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 “in the late third century B. C. . . . [in] his own time, which was the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator.” It would have been impossible to make chronological calculations based on Daniel 9 many years before the book was supposedly forged in the following century. The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sirach was composed, at the very latest, between 200-175 B. C., and has even been dated to the fourth century B. C.; it can by no means be dated to the Maccabean period. Nevertheless, Ecclesiasticus clearly refers to Daniel and contains a prayer that the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled soon. Likewise, the book of Baruch predates the Maccabean era but contains clear allusions to Daniel. Similarly, 1 Maccabees records Matthias on his deathbead counselling his sons to emulate the example of “Daniel[,] [who] for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.” Matthias likewise challenges his sons to follow the example set by Daniel’s three Hebrew friends, who “because of their faith were saved from fire.” However, the anti-supernaturalist dates Daniel after the death of Matthias. 1 Maccabees also contains verbal allusions to the LXX of Daniel, further requiring the existence of the book both in the original language and in translation.
SOURCES:
On this topic, see Roger T. Beckwith, “Early Traces of the Book of Daniel,” Tyndale Bulletin 53:1 (2002) 75-82 & and Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), 355-358.
See W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935), 169; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), Tobit.
Tobit 14:4-5; Daniel 2:21; 7:24; 8:14; 9:24; 12:7, 11-12. Beckwith notes:
Tobit is a work of primitive character, giving signs of belonging to the Persian period . . . and in the earlier text of it (that found in Codex Sinaiticus) it speaks of “the prophets of Israel” as predicting times and seasons, in the manner of Daniel, “until the time when the time of the seasons is fulfilled” (Tobit 14:4f.; cp. Dan. 2, 7–9, 11–12). Similarly, it has become a commonplace in Tobit and in other intertestamental works to assume that pious Jews of the exilic period would have avoided eating the unclean food of the Gentiles (Tobit 1:10–13; Judith 10:5; 12:2; Rest of Esther 14:17, addition C); but these incidental references all seem likely to go back to the extended narrative of Dan. 1:5–16. (Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism [London: SPCK, 1985])
Beckwith notes:
There are close links between Daniel and the first book of 1 Enoch, the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36), showing dependence . . . on the side of the Book of Watchers. The links are the designation “watchers” for angels (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23; cp. 1 En. 10.9, 15; 12.2–4; 13.10 etc.), the names Michael and Gabriel for two of the angels (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; 10:13, 21; 12:1; cp. 1 En. 9.1; 10.9, 11 etc.) and the striking parallel between the vision of God in Dan. 7:9f. and that in 1 En. 14.18–22. But the age of the MSS of the Book of Watchers from Qumran indicates that its composition goes back to the latter half of the third century B. C., so the composition of Daniel must go back to a still earlier date. (Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism [London: SPCK, 1985], 357)
See Timothy H. Lim et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 104.
Roger T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” Revue de Qumran 40 [1981], 523, 528.
See the discussion in Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella O.F.M., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 39, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 8-10; Robert Henry Charles, ed., Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), Sirach, sec. 6; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), xx-xxiii. The early date for Ecclesiasticus is defended in E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), Lecture 6, and in J. H. A. Hart, Ecclesiasticus: The Greek Text of Codex 248 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909) 249-266.
Ecclesiasticus 36:10 is a prayer for the coming of the “end” and “appointed time” referred to in Daniel 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35; 12:4, 9. In the LXX a slightly different numbering system is employed, and Ecclesiasticus 36:10 is 36:7. Note the discussion in Roger T. Beckwith, “Early Traces of the Book of Daniel,” Tyndale Bulletin 53:1 (2002) 80-81. Beckwith concludes that Ben Sirach’s prayer “was made with full knowledge of the prophecies contained in Daniel 8 or 11-12, and asks explicitly that they may soon be fulfilled. . . . Ben Sira evidently knew the Book of Daniel” (pg. 81).
See Daniel 9:4-19; Baruch 1:15-2:19 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), 359–362.
1 Maccabees 2:59-60; see Daniel 3, 6. 1 Maccabees 2:49 also alludes to Daniel 8:19.
See 1 Maccabees 1:54, where “abomination of desolation” alludes to the same Greek words in Daniel 9:27 & 11:31.
LikeLike
The objections below have all been made above in this thread. See pgs. 51-53 http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/:
The book of Daniel has been criticized for referring to Nebuchadnezzar as the “father” of Belshazzar (Daniel 5:11, 18), since Belshazzar was not the immediate descendent of Nebuchadnezzar. However, there is evidence that Belshazzar’s mother was Nitocris, daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, so Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson. In Semitic usage there was not even a separate word for grandson; on the contrary, son was regularly used in the sense of “offspring” or for descendants other than immediate ones. For that matter, “in the ancient world, successive monarchs were often identified as sons of famous predecessors even when there was no dynastic or genealogical connections. So, for instance, on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser III, Jehu, king of Israel, is identified as ‘son of Omri,’ even though he had been responsible for wiping out the line of Omri and was no relation (a fact probably well known to the Assyrians)” (Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Da 5:2.). Thus, even if Belshazzar had not a drop of Nebuchadnezzar’s blood in him the language employed in Daniel would be entirely appropriate. This objection is simply quibbling. See R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 1120; Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 276–277 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864), 404–407, for further discussion.
The fact that Daniel was classified with the “Writings” in the Hebrew canon rather than the “Prophets” is appealed to in support of a late date. However, the third division of the Hebrew canon contains early books such as Job, the Davidic Psalms and the writings of Solomon, and Ruth, as well as later books such as Chronicles. The simple reason for assigning Daniel to the third division is that he was a statesman in a heathen court who had prophetic gifts, much like Joseph, rather than one who held the official office of prophet within the theocratic community, like Isaiah or Jeremiah. Indeed, the book of Daniel records a great deal of history that does not contain any specific prophecies, unlike all of the strictly prophetic books. Furthermore, all the extant early evidence clearly recognizes Daniel as a prophet. This argument has been classified as a weak and “almost desperate appeal” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969], 1123) to weaken the clear supernaturalism of Daniel.
Anti-supernaturalists point out that Daniel is not mentioned in the list of famous Israelites in Ecclesiasticus 44:1ff, written c. 180 B. C. Since Daniel is not mentioned in this passage, it is argued, he was unknown at the time. However, Job also goes unmentioned, as do all the judges except Samuel, Ezra, Mordecai, Asa, and Jehoshaphat. This argument from silence proves nothing. What is more, Ezekiel is mentioned (Ecclesiasticus 49:8-9), and Ezekiel mentions Daniel (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3), so Ecclesiasticus supports the existence of Daniel. Furthermore, “The shallowness and erroneous nature of [this objection] . . . has been amply demonstrated by the Qumran discoveries, which make it impossible to deny the popularity of Daniel at that period, if the numbers of copies and fragments of the composition may be taken as furnishing any indication at all of the situation” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969], 1123). Unless one wishes to argue the fantastically unhistorical position that Ezra, Gideon, Ehud, Othniel, Asa, and so on were unknown in 180 B. C., the absence of Daniel’s name in Ecclesiasticus proves nothing. What is more, Daniel is not mentioned in a section of Ecclesiasticus that deals with the second half of the Jewish canon, the nevi’im, but Daniel is found in the third division, the kethuvim, so “not mentioning him there implies no more than that the Jews in his time had the same arrangement [of books] as they have now . . . clearly . . . [there is no] argument against the existence of the book of Daniel, in the time of the son of Sirach, [from the fact] that writer did not speak of its author in a place which he did not occupy in the Canon” (E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 349, 352). Indeed, Ben Sira does not mention any authors outside of Israel (such as Jonah at Nineveh, Daniel at Babylon, or Mordecai in Persia), probably because of his nationalistic ideas, so the mention of Daniel in Ecclesiasticus would be unexpected.
What is more, there are textual evidences that, while Daniel’s name is not mentioned, nonetheless in Ecclesiasticus “the previous existence of the book of Daniel is presupposed, for the idea presented in Sirach 17:14, that God had given to that people an angel as hegemonos (sar), refers to Daniel 10:13, 20-11:1; 12:1 . . . Daniel is the author from whom this opinion was derived” (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 505. Greek and Hebrew characters have been transliterated.).
Anti-supernaturalists appeal to certain passages of Daniel (e. g., 11:40-45) that, they claim, are about Antiochus Ephiphanes and state that, since Antiochus did not do what the passages say, the book contains historical error. However, these passages, which anti-supernaturalists claim are in reference to Antiochus, actually concern the future Antichrist; Antiochus Ephiphanes did not fulfill these passages because they did not deal with him. In ancient times “the Jews th[ought] Antichrist is spoken of . . . [in] this passage” (see Jerome, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason Archer [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1977], comment on Daniel 11:36); such is the natural interpretation of the passage, not an arbitrary expident to attempt to explain away an alleged false prophecy.
Indeed, the evident distinction between the actions of Antiochus and the statements of these passages constitutes a serious objection to the second century anti-supernaturalist date for the book. The alleged second-century forger of Daniel could successfully record the history of past centuries and of his own time with amazing accuracy. How could he have recorded allegedly contemporary events about Antiochus so inaccurately, and, if he had done so, why would the Jews have accepted the forged and errant book into the canon of Scripture and unhesitatingly accepted its inerrancy almost immediately after the time of the alleged gross historical errors? “It is difficult to see how an intelligent second-century B. C. Jewish author could possibly have made such blunders as the critical scholars have ascribed to the compiler of Daniel[.] . . . Had the work contained as many frank errors as are usually credited to it, it is certain that the book would never have gained acceptance into the canon of Scripture, since it would have emerged very poorly by comparison with the writings of secular historians such as Herodotus, Ctesias, Menander, and others whose compositions are no longer extant” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969] 1122).
LikeLike
On the break between Daniel 11:35-36. This is clearly exegetically justifiable. 11:35-36 certainly is not proof–which is what is needed–of an error, because a reasonable non-erroneous view is possible:
Scholars are in agreement that the vision up to this point has been concerned with events between the time of Cyrus (in which Daniel lived) and the death of Antiochus IV, but with v. 36 this agreement ends. Although there have been other identifications set forth for the “king” of vv. 36–45,82 there are two principal views today.
Those who adhere to the Maccabean thesis maintain that vv. 36–45 continue to speak of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, there are serious problems with this position, not the least of which is the fact that much of the historical data set forth in these verses (even in vv. 36–39) is impossible to harmonize with Antiochus’s life.83 For example, Antiochus did not exalt himself above every god (vv. 36–37), reject “the gods of his fathers,” or worship “a god unknown to his fathers” (v. 38); on the contrary, he worshiped the Greek pantheon, even building an altar and offering sacrifices to Zeus in the Jerusalem temple precincts. Daniel also predicted that this king “will come to his end” in Palestine (v. 45), but it is a matter of historical record that Antiochus IV died at Tabae in Persia.
Exegetical necessity requires that 11:36–45 be applied to someone other than Antiochus IV. The context indicates that the ruler now in view will live in the last days, immediately prior to the coming of the Lord. Verse 40 reveals that this king’s activities will take place “at the time of the end” (cf. 10:14), and the “time of distress” mentioned in 12:1 is best understood as the same “distress” (the tribulation) predicted by Jesus Christ in Matt 24:21 as occurring immediately before his second advent (Matt 24:29–31; cf. Rev 7:14). But the clearest indication that this “king” will live in the latter days is that the resurrection of the saints will take place immediately after God delivers his people from this evil individual’s power (cf. 12:2). Of course, the resurrection is an eschatological event. Finally, vv. 36–39 seem to introduce this king as if for the first time. . . . That Daniel now speaks of a future ruler should not be surprising, for as J. P. Tanner has pointed out: “A sudden leap forward in time from Dan 11:35 to 11:36 is consistent with other leaps in time throughout the chapter (e.g., 11:2–3)” (“Daniel’s ‘King of the North’: Do We Owe Russia an Apology?” JETS 35 [1992]: 317). . . . Daniel previously had described this person (chaps. 7 and 9) and expected the reader to recognize him without an introduction. He is none other than the “little horn” of Dan 7 and “the ruler who will come” of Dan 9:26. He is known in the New Testament as “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:3–12), the “antichrist” (1 John 2:18), and the “beast” (Rev 11–20). Interpreting this passage to foretell Antichrist has been a widely accepted view since ancient times (e.g., Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret), and Young rightly calls this “the traditional interpretation in the Christian Church.”85 Almost sixteen hundred years ago Jerome declared: “Those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time.”86 Today the majority of both amillennial (e.g., Young) and premillennial (e.g., Archer) scholars interpret this king to be Antichrist.87 In reality a description of Antichrist should not be considered surprising in a context with Antiochus IV, for both of these oppressors of God’s people have previously been given a prominent place in Daniel’s prophecies (cf. chaps. 7–9). Thus Gabriel had now ceased to speak of Antiochus and had begun to describe the one he closely resembled (or typified), the eschatological Antichrist.
Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 304–306.
LikeLike
Tom, I haven’t read all your recent comments yet, but I’m working through them. I have a request: when you say that certain books (Sirach, Tobit, etc) make references to Daniel, please cite the actual passages, not references to other scholars’ books. It may be that other scholars are claiming these things, but they have to get the information from some primary source. What is that primary source?
And if you could provide that kind of information, then you probably wouldn’t have to paste in such long sections from these other articles. Let’s just get down to the pertinent info, you know?
I’d ask the same for the claim that Belshazzar was probably the daughter of Nitocris, who was probably the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. I’ve seen that claim before, but I’ve never seen any concrete evidence for it. There seems to be much disagreement over who her son was (since no source I know of uses the names Nabonidus or Belshazzar), who her husband was, and who her father was. What’s a solid primary source that demonstrates the connection?
Thanks
LikeLike
Btw, I still assume that many of these “strong links” between other books and Daniel are of the sort that we discussed earlier — similar word usage, etc. These aren’t necessarily connected to Daniel in any way as Travis or Peter pointed out earlier. And if there is a connection, there’s no guarantee which way it runs. So again, any actual quotes you can provide from those primary sources would be appreciated.
LikeLike
Tom, your last two comments are just rehashes of things we’ve already talked about. And this one is just a repackage of something we’ve already discussed:
This does not make Ecclesiasticus another source that refers to Daniel. It still just points to Ezekiel, and you already know that the rest of us don’t think Ezekiel was talking about Daniel.
You also said (or maybe it was a quote from another source):
But how can you demonstrate this? The “king of the north” and “king of the south” language doesn’t change. It’s one thing to claim that it suddenly shifts to the “Antichrist,” but the text doesn’t make this claim. And within Christianity, there are many views on what this points to. The fact is, Christians only claim that the focus shifts because Antiochus Epiphanes didn’t do these things. As we’ve said before, this is evidence that we’ve finally reached the point where “Daniel” is actually prophesying.
LikeLike
As a point of interest, I’ve just spent some time going down a few rabbit holes concerning Nitocris of Babylon (not to be confused with Nitocris of Egypt). As mentioned earlier, Christians sometimes claim that she was Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, and that she married Nabonidus, making Belshazzar her son. Does anyone know where this information comes from?
I know that the only mention of Nitocris is from Herodotus’s Histories Book 1, sections 185-188. But Herodotus never mentions Nebuchadnezzar. He says that Nitocris was an important queen of Babylon, and that she was married to Labynetos (sec 188), and that they had a son also named Labynetos. Herodotus goes on to say that Cyrus was marching against her son, and this is what leads people to think that the older Labynetos must have been Nabonidus and the younger Labynetos must have been Belshazzar. Maybe that’s the case.
The problem I’m having is that I haven’t found any source that ties Nebuchadnezzar to this Nitocris, and I’m not sure there is one. I ran across a book called Warrior Women: the Anonymous Tractatus De Mulieribus, by Deborah Levine Gera, and beginning with page 106 she talks about Nitocris of Babylon. In her introduction (p. 106), she says this:
She goes on to compare Nitocris to several other queens from that time looking for possible matches. Anyway, it gives me the impression that Herodotus is the only source we have for this Nitocris, so I’m not sure where the connection to Nebuchadnezzar comes from.
The one source I’ve seen referenced when people make this claim is Nabonidus and Belshazzar by Raymond Philip Dougherty, published in 1929. But I haven’t seen a direct quote, so I’m not sure what his book might say. Luckily, I’ve found that a local university library has a copy, so I’m going to run by there tomorrow to see if I can read the referenced pages for myself. I’ll follow up with any information I run across.
And again, if anyone else knows anything on where this claim comes from, I’d love to hear about it.
LikeLike